In his last attempt to debunk the non-aggression principle, Petersen really pulls out all the stops, contributing one whole entire sentence to his “article,” and it’s this:

Jefferson and Locke would be rolling in their graves if libertarians took the NAP as an absolute principle:

That shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, because neither accepted the NAP as an absolute principle. Both saw a role for a coercive government, so obviously they would be taken aback by those who advocated a completely voluntary or stateless society. Furthermore, why should we be concerned if they are rolling in their graves? They aren’t gods. We get to disagree with them.

“Even if the NAP is correct, it cannot serve as a fundamental principle of libertarian ethics, because its meaning and normative force are entirely parasitic on an underlying theory of property. Suppose A is walking across an empty field, when B jumps out of the bushes and clubs A on the head. It certainly looks like B is aggressing against A in this case. But on the libertarian view, whether this is so depends entirely on the relevant property rights – specifically, who owns the field. If it’s B’s field, and A was crossing it without B’s consent, then A was the one who was actually aggressing against B. Thus, “aggression,” on the libertarian view, doesn’t really mean physical violence at all. It means ‘violation of property rights.’”

Actually, the non-aggression principle IS the fundamental principle of libertarianism, and it blends seamlessly with a Lockean theory of property rights. In the example above, the libertarian view would depend on whether A had signs up making it clear that this field was private property, and even if he did, unless B is stealing from or harming A’s property, there is no validation for the use of violence to remove B from the property on its face. A can simply inform B that he is trespassing, and they can end their interaction peacefully. Nowhere in the NAP is there a provision that private property becomes a free fire zone where trespassers can have violence used against them simply for trespassing upon someone else’s property. In fact, the concept of proportionality would make “B” the clear aggressor in the case above. B had no idea whether or not A knew he was on private property, whether A had any designs on aggressing against his property, or how A might aggress if he did intend to.

And didn’t Zwolinski say elsewhere in his piece that the NAP only applies to physical violence? How can he argue that there is no provision against fraud or theft, because they are not acts of physical violence, yet argue that simply walking across a field is an aggression that can be met with force in a literal understanding of the non-aggression principle? He mentions the Federal Reserve as being immune from retribution according to the non-aggression principle, even though it enjoys a government-enforced monopoly to defraud everyone who spends dollars, but bonking people on the head for wandering onto our property is an acceptable use of force?

Zwolinski seems to make assumptions about the NAP that depend upon what he needs it to mean for the purposes of his arguments against it. And Petersen, the dimmest bulb in all of libertarianism, goes right along with it.

Written by

Anarchist because I'm Christian. I have an awesome family, I love to spend time outdoors and read. I'm often involved in community charities. I have one-third of a B.S. in history and economics--never let school get in the way of your education.

Altar & Throne

Help Support Altar & Throne

Do you like what you're seeing here? Help support us to keep the content comin'!

Bitcoin:

Paypal:

Affiliate

Many of us here at Altar & Throne have had our horizons expanded through Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom, and believe in and endorse this product. Join today to get the education you've never received before!